I don’t know which ideas in my 2006 Plaincourault article Gnostic Irvin[2006-2009] agrees with.
http://www.egodeath.com/WassonEdenTree.htm
I didn’t know that in 2006, re: 2006 Irvin, and I know that even less re: 2015-2022 Irvin.
I have agreements & disagreements with Gnostic Irvin & with Logos Irvin.
Logos Irvin has agreements & disagreements with Gnostic Irvin.
Irvin’s assertions have switched fields.
My Phase 2 Mytheme work builds on & around my Phase 1 Core theory work, rather than switching away from the Core theory.
Do the Irvins agree with each other? Irvin needs more time to reevaluate his Gnostic Media views. He went to a Dead show, toward doing so.
Logos Media Irvin[2015-2022] != Gnostic Media Irvin of Gnostic Media/ Pharmacratic Inquisition era.
Irvin’s transitional and final publication is the entheogen-negative expose article series The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity.
or maybe it was titled The Secret History of Magic Mushrooms, which Brown 2019 cites:
Entheogens in Christian art: Wasson, Allegro, and the Psychedelic Gospels
I heard Logos Media Irvin give less than faint praise to entheogens, but have not heard a full, adequate re-accounting & re-valuation of the entheogenic Eucharist.
Presumably Irvin believes ahistoricity.
Irvin changed his coverage field & some of his relevant values.
Compare James Kent’s revaluation of psychedelics. Book: PIT: Psychedelic Information Theory.
I treat the books Astrotheology & The Holy Mushroom as if representing Irvin’s 2022 views, but that’s hardly possible, given his flip against entheogen scholarship, or against the bulk of entheogen scholars.
I’ve always written critically, from above & outside the field of entheogen scholarship, as a repairman from outside the field.
My views are constant, explicit, articulate, elaborating over the years, developing more detail.
My repetitiveness (progressive spiral circling) over the period of 1997-2022, or longer, has advantages.
My values about myth and entheogens have stayed the same: my posts began as articulate, & were further articulated in the same, clear, specified direction.
So it’s easy to discuss the Egodeath theory over the decades.
My Phase 2 work (1998-2022) added Mytheme/analogy theory & History to my Phase 1 (1985-1997) Core theory (psychedelic eternalism with dependent control).
I always wonder how the Core theory should be somewhat re-shaped by the later analogy-mapping theory, for ease of mapping.
But I never seem to get around to revisiting the Core theory to revise it to make mapping to mythemes easier:
re-expressing the Core theory in terms of {branching vs non-branching}? Not sure what that revision involves.
The nature of my theory revision is to add connections, not to modify existing values or content/ connections.
The Egodeath theory 